Rhetorical Critique of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

Taylor Ann Lawhead

Prof. Christopher Brown

English 1B

March 25, 2013

A Rhetorical Critique of “Is Google Making Us Stupid” by Nicholas Carr

            Every day there is some new technological advancement making its way into the world in an attempt to make life easier for people. In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, author Nicholas Carr explains his thoughts on how he believes the internet is running the risk of making people full of artificial knowledge. Carr begins by explaining how he feels that the web is causing his focus issues, how he can no longer be completely immersed in a book, and the reason why he gets fidgety while reading. He then goes on to talk about how his life is surrounded by the internet and how that is the blame for the issues he has towards not being able to stay connected to a text; but at the same time says how and why the web has been a ‘godsend’ because he is a writer. In an attempt to draw the reader in, Carr uses a great deal of rhetorical appeals. He compares the differences of the past and the present and how he feels how it has changed not only himself, but others as well and how they are able to comprehend and focus due to the growing nature of the web. While comparing this, he accumulated research from several credited writers who feel the same way he does about the effects of the web. Carr uses personal experience, vivid imagery, and analysis backed by research to hook the viewer in and persuade them that in today’s society, the internet is causing mainly problems.

            Although Carr has his own personal experiences with the negative effects of the web, he also did his research on how other writers had agreed with him on the subject to help support his strategies of logos. The use of the evidence from the other writers helps to draw in the reader and show them the effects of the internet with the help of reputable resources. In the article, he states that one of the articles he gained information from had said, “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense”; that the way we read now is what you would call ‘skimming’ or reading “horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins”. With reading on the web, people don’t read the entire article and it is seen that they bounce from page to page, losing focus quickly. Carr uses this information because the reader can relate to it, like himself. Like in the article he uses to support his case, he agrees how people, like himself, lose focus rather quickly when reading on the web, and it is causing people to lose focus when looking at physical readings. This information that gathered helps his article because it is not in conflict with what he had stated. Another example of logos that Carr uses is when a writer, Maryanne Wolf, describes how due to text messaging and cell phones we are experiencing a different type of reading today than in the 1960’s and 70’s; a type of reading that “may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading”. This is useful in the sense that it is evidence is aimed towards a younger age and therefore can pull in a different audience. This example, while still logos due to it based on evidence and facts, can also be considered ethos in a sense that he is trying to ‘build a bridge’ in a connection with his audience. Although this seems like a strong strategy to relate to a different age based audience, it could also conflict with others that already have a set perceived notion about these effects. In another part of the article he contradicts himself by using the information from James Olds, a professor of neuroscience, when he states that the human mind is very malleable and has the ability to reprogram itself. When using this information, its conflicts with the statement from Wolf about the reading of texts weakening the mind. Although he uses facts from reputable sources to show that he is knowledgeable about the subject, due to the contradicting information it can cause the reader to question whether or not he knows where he is going with the topic.

            While using the strategy of facts and evidence can be effective, Carr also uses vivid imagery and detailed wording to reel the reader in. The author uses the strategy of pathos to make the reader interpret his views the way that he sees them himself. An example of this would be when he talks about the way he loses focus in a text and that he feels he is “dragging his wayward brain back” to whatever he was reading. Carr uses this metaphor, giving an action to an object, to show the reader exactly the difficulty he has staying focused on a reading and how he has to almost ‘physically’ bring his mind back to the text. He is trying to show his struggle to the reader. Another example of this strategy of pathos would be how he says that he “once was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now [he] zip(s) along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” He attempts to pull the reader in by using this vivid imagery to show how he used to be fully immersed in a book but now due to the Net, he just skims the readings and doesn’t get to see what is below the surface. The use of the imagery and the figurative language can be very effective due to that it can pull in every age of audience because it appeals to a person’s imagination. I believe that the use of pathos, when done correctly, can be very moving and persuasive. Carr used the right language to pull the reader in and to show how he was feeling without being too over the top, and was able to persuade his reader to the effects of the web in today’s society.

            In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he uses the rhetorical strategies to try to persuade his audience into believing that due to the Web being used so much in today’s society, that it is causing more harm than good. He uses backed up information to get his point across while also showing his character to connect with the audience. Carr also uses the strategy of pathos to appeal to the readers imagination to pull them in to show what he experienced. I feel that although I may not agree with everything he is stating, the things he used were persuasive enough to keep the reader reading, and some agreeing with him that the internet is causing more harm to the human mind.